Pages

Jan 12, 2016

Electoral Corruption

Our aim here is to demonstrate the
glaring abuses of current electoral practice that militate against the
ability of nationalist political parties to advance our cause
electorally, with anything other than isolated or sporadic successes
that are inevitably short lived; which make it virtually impossible in
the current circumstances for a nationalist political party to achieve
power; and which render the electoral route to political power a futile
process for us at present.

History has shown that where there is
widespread scope for electoral malpractice by the state, any radical new
movement that challenges the fundamental values of the current
political regime, can only bring about a reform of the electoral system
once it has achieved the wherewithal such that it is able to challenge
the existing order by extra-parliamentary means.

History of the Electoral System

Detailed below is a catalogue of the
main pieces of legislation determining the current electoral system in
the UK. It is important that we have a basic understanding of the
evolution of the current system and while the scope exists for the
current system to be tightly administered in such a way that the public
could have complete confidence in its robustness, current electoral
practice has been allowed to become sloppy to such an extent that no
intelligent person, aware of the facts, can have anything less than
grave doubts over the legitimacy of the results of recent elections, at
either a local, regional or national level, or indeed at the European
level.

While the Bill of Rights 1689
established the principle of regular parliaments and free elections,
until the Reform Act of 1832 no more than 10% of the adult male
population of Britain had the right to vote.

The Reform Act of 1832,
sometimes referred to as the Great Reform Act, abolished the Rotten
Boroughs that had corrupted earlier politics and reduced the property
qualifications required to vote, thereby enfranchising a further 4% of
adult males. These steps were not greatly significant in themselves, but
what was important was that these reforms were the first significant
step on the way to universal adult franchise.

During the mid-1800s the Chartist
movement campaigned for universal male franchise and the secret ballot,
but to no avail. However the Reform Act of 1867 did
increase the size of the electorate up to 32% of the adult male
population by introducing further provisions reducing the property
qualification so that all male householders could vote, and this allowed
some working class men to vote for the first time.

The Ballot Act 1872 replaced open elections with a secret ballot system. This was followed by the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883, which criminalised attempts to bribe voters and standardised the amount that could be spent on election expenses. The Representation of the People Act 1884 and the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 (the Third Reform Act) together increased the electorate to 56% of the adult male population.

The Representation of the People Act 1918
expanded the electorate to include all men over the age of 21 and most
women over the age of 30. Later that year, the Parliament (Qualification
of Women) Act 1918 gave women over 21 the right to stand for election
as MPs.

The Equal Franchise Act 1928 lowered the minimum age for women to vote from 30 to 21, making men and women equal in terms of suffrage for the first time. The Representation of the People Act 1949 abolished additional votes for graduates and the owners of business premises.

The Representation of the People Act 1969 lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. The Representation of the People Act 1985 gave British citizens abroad the right to vote for a five-year period after they had left the United Kingdom. The Representation of the People Act 1989 extended the period to 20 years; and citizens who were too young to vote when they left the country also became eligible.

The Labour Party introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000,
which created the Electoral Commission, which since 2000 has been
responsible for the running of elections and referendums and regulating
party funding. It also reduced the period during which British
expatriates can vote, from 20 years after they emigrate to 15 years.

The Sloppy Administration of Electoral Processes and Procedures

Most
of the history above charts the various extensions of the franchise,
from a relatively limited number of wealthy individuals in medieval
times through to the universal adult franchise of today.

We maintain that the potential for
widespread corruption exists within our current electoral system and our
belief that as a result of this potential, our current political
establishment will have been ‘fixing’ all critical election results for
many decades.

Anyone who has actively participated in
an election campaign will know that the basic rules designed to ensure a
robust outcome to elections are nowadays flagrantly flouted on a
routine basis. The current system is administered in such a sloppy
manner that it would be impossible to measure the full scope for
electoral fraud which could be committed by our political establishment:

Polling agents are routinely frustrated
in their efforts to check that ballot boxes are empty at the start of
polling; ballot boxes are routinely opened during the course of polling
ostensibly so that ballot papers can be squashed down to make more room
in those ballot boxes; the electoral staff do not use numbered seals, so
the seals on the boxes can be broken and the boxes repeatedly opened
and resealed unchecked; when parties apply their own numbered ballot box
seals, which they are entitled to, these seals are often found broken
open prior to the count with no explanation; ballot boxes are
transported to the count in the boots of the private cars of electoral
staff, which often take an inordinate length of time to reach the count,
again with no explanation offered; ballot boxes are often stored
overnight in poorly secured storage facilities; and ballot boxes are
routinely broken open before election agents and counting observers are
admitted to the counting hall. All of these are flagrant breaches of
electoral procedure and these breaches are routinely ignored when
complaints are made.

Ballot boxes may contain fraudulently
completed ballot papers at the beginning of polling day; polling station
staff could add fraudulent ballot papers to ballot boxes during polling
day, unsealing and resealing the ballot boxes as required; the ballot
boxes delivered to the count could have been opened and interfered with
on route to the count, or entire, fraudulently stuffed ballot boxes
could be substituted in their place on route; and finally, ballot boxes
could be interfered with at the count prior candidates and agents being
admitted. All these abuses listed could be carried out by a small number
of corrupt electoral officials under the current system in
circumstances in which no-one else would find out.

Furthermore, once we begin to consider
the increased take-up of postal voting, in which it is known that
community leaders within the ethnic minorities exercise an undue
influence over the way in which the members of their communities vote,
in some cases going so far as to oversee the way their people vote and
collect the ballot papers from them for bulk delivery to the electoral
services office, we start to see how the practice of immigrant
communities voting as a bloc has developed and is perverting the outcome
of elections. The immigrants involved are effectively denied a secret
ballot and are induced through community loyalty to vote under the
duress of their community leaders.

Postal votes are also received at
electoral services offices over a period of several days prior to
polling day and are stored in facilities that offer only dubious
security.

Lastly, in many cases when the count
does not take place on the same day as polling, both postal votes and
the ballot boxes containing ballot papers completed in the normal way
are stored overnight in the sports halls that frequently serve as
counting halls, in simple sports equipment storage cupboards, which
presumably the manager of that facility, the caretaker and cleaners all
have keys with which to gain access.

In order to fraudulently ‘fix’ the
outcome of a general election, it would not be necessary for our current
political establishment to commit electoral fraud in every ward of
every constituency across the land, but just in enough of the critical
‘marginal’ wards, in just the critical or marginal constituencies, in
order to tip the balance and produce the desired outcome.

Similarly, in order to prevent a rising
nationalist party from acquiring any effective political representation,
it would not be necessary to ‘fix’ the election results in every ward
or constituency, but solely in the critical wards and of the critical
constituencies in those areas where that new party is likely to get
candidates elected.

When Nationalist Candidates Have Been Elected

Obviously,
our political establishment are not infallible and occasionally they
will miscalculate and in an area where they have in the past not
expected a nationalist victory, it has been possible for a surprise win
to sporadically occur. Furthermore, if an isolated nationalist victory
would not materially affect the balance of power, the establishment
might choose not to interfere and in such cases we have seen isolated
nationalist councillors elected to local councils and county councils
where as a lone voice, shunned by the councillors of the establishment
parties, they have had no power to influence council policy or decision
making.

Many people have pointed to the
successes of nationalist candidates and quasi-nationalist conservative
parties such as UKIP in European elections and have questioned why it is
that UKIP were able to get 24 candidates elected to the European
Parliament if our electoral system is so easily corrupted, and the
answer to this is simple. Over the larger electoral constituencies,
electoral regions, that exist for the purposes of European parliamentary
elections, the amount of ‘fixing’ would need to be extensive and the
number of people needed to actively corrupt the outcome everywhere, such
that no UKIP or nationalist candidates would be elected, would require a
mammoth effort, and electoral fraud on that scale would greatly
increase the risk of it being uncovered by some chance mistake.

Furthermore, the election of members of
the European Parliament (MEPs), even in the numbers achieved by UKIP,
does not significantly affect the balance of power at either Westminster
or the European Parliament. Nationalist or UKIP MEPs have no
jurisdiction at Westminster and therefore cannot influence legislation
at the national level, and they are so small in number compared to the
vast number of liberal/left-wing MEPs within the European Parliament,
that they are powerless there also. Therefore our political
establishment can afford to be more relaxed about the outcome of
European elections, although we can be sure that in-so-far as it is
possible to ‘fix’ outcomes at little or no risk, such ‘fixing’ will
none-the-less still be taking place.

The Principle of Moral Hazard

Some people may accept that the
potential exists for electoral fraud to take place, but they might also
question whether or not it does actually take place routinely enough or
systematically enough and on such a scale as to affect the outcomes of
elections generally, and we accept this as a valid viewpoint, albeit
naïve.

Within banking there is the ever-present
possibility of bank staff embezzling customers’ money and while we all
like to think that bank staff are chosen for their inherent honesty,
banks as institutions have found that it is impossible to rely on such
honesty on the part of their staff, because of what has become
recognised as ‘moral hazard’.

The principle of moral hazard, which has
evolved as a result of banking experience, asserts that if someone is
regularly and routinely exposed to the temptation of committing an
illegal act that will be of benefit to them, in circumstances in which
no-one would know and no-one would find out, they will eventually
succumb to that temptation. For this reason, banking procedures are all
designed with moral hazard in mind and all bank staff are made aware
that thorough checks and audits are regularly conducted so that any act
of dishonesty on their part will inevitably be discovered and their
identity as the culprit revealed.

Furthermore, where banking procedures
are discovered to be insufficiently robust, such that embezzlement could
take place without being discovered or without the culprit being
identified, the assumption is that such fraudulent activity will have
been taking place.

Therefore, based upon the experience of
the banking industry, we must acknowledge that with the massive
potential that exists for electoral fraud to take place and remain
undiscovered and for the perpetrators to remain concealed, electoral
fraud must have been taking place on a widespread basis for many
decades. It would be naïve in the extreme to assume otherwise.

Indeed, such is the massive scope for
fraud to take place, it is inconceivable that no-one involved in the
electoral process has as yet realised this and the dangers posed. The
fact that such a flawed system has been allowed to continue without
reform for so many years, is a clear indication that someone in
authority does not want the system reformed and have vested interests
that are served by the current flawed system being perpetuated.

When the Authorities are Confronted

Our
experience is that when the authorities are confronted by complaints
from nationalist parties, as they were by the British National Party
during elections between 2000 and 2010, regarding the inadequate way in
which elections are administered, the authorities simply shrug off the
complaints dismissively and reply, stating that no-one else is concerned
about this issue.

The authorities know that even at the
best of times, nationalist parties have in the past lacked the resources
needed to take court action to force a reform of the electoral system
or to force the authorities to more robustly administer elections. They
also know only too well that in the immediate aftermath of a major
election, all political parties, and especially the smaller parties will
have empty ‘war chests’ and will be impotent in the face of their
intransigence.

The Six Prerequisites

As stated earlier, history has shown
that where there is widespread scope for electoral malpractice by the
state, any radical new movement that challenges the fundamental values
of the current political regime, can only bring about a reform of the
electoral system once it has achieved the wherewithal such that it is
able to challenge the existing order by extra-parliamentary means.
Furthermore, this should not be interpreted as a threat of violence as
there are many ways in which political influence can be exercised,
outside of parliament and without recourse to violence, but they all
require the possession of significant assets.

In that it is impossible for a
nationalist political party to win power under the current electoral
system, for all of the reasons discussed above, the only route to
power for us is through the acquisition of the means through which we
will be able to impose serious consequences upon the current political
establishment if they fail to carry out the necessary reforms and if
they continue to gerrymander elections in the way they have to date.

This means that before we can contest
elections with a realistic hope of winning power, we must spend time
acquiring the assets needed, and while this will entail a massive
undertaking on our part, we have no hope of electoral success, or
success by any other means if we shrink back from that undertaking.

We have set out a ‘shopping list’ of the
assets we must have before we can mount a realistic challenge to the
establishment, and that list we call the ‘Six Prerequisites’.

The Six Prerequisites have not be chosen
lightly and they are not fantastic, ‘pie in the sky’ things that have
simply been taken off the top of our heads, and six in number because we
believe that six is a nice round number, like the number of cans in a
six-pack. The Six Prerequisites are vital assets that we must have if we
are to have any hope of winning power and without which our movement
will inevitably fail.

Once we have the Six Prerequisites, then
a new era of hope for the electoral path to power will be established
and we can look forward to a glorious future in which political power
will be achieved by us both legitimately and constitutionally. It is
therefore a matter of the utmost urgency that all men and women of
goodwill, who care about the values inherent in our traditional British
way of life and who care about the future survival, welfare and
self-determination of the indigenous British people, join us and help us
to acquire the Six Prerequisites as a prelude to the subsequent
democratic challenge for political power.